maintenance

name	maintenance
description	Use when the user asks for a project health audit, maintenance sweep, or multi-category lead-engineer scan followed by interactive issue-by-issue resolution with user approval. Do NOT trigger on routine lint/test runs, single-file cleanups, or standard "check project" requests.

Task: Project Maintenance & Health Audit

Overview

Execute a rigorous multi-category maintenance sweep, then walk the user through each finding interactively. The process has two distinct phases:

• Scan Phase: Run all checks silently, collecting findings into an internal list. No fixes during this phase.
• Resolution Phase: Present the summary, then iterate through each finding — show details, propose a fix, ask the user for a decision, apply if approved.

Context

The "Garbage Collector" / "Building Inspector": keeps the codebase maintainable, documented, and architecturally sound.

Categories checked (full sub-check detail is embedded in the 5 self-contained maintenance-scan-* subagents — see the Category index in Step 2):

1. Structure: Files in wrong places.
2. Consistency: Docs vs. Code truth.
3. Hygiene: Dead code, unused imports, weak tests.
4. Complexity: God objects and massive functions.
5. Debt: Accumulated TODOs.
6. Language: Inconsistent terminology.
7. Doc Coverage: Missing explanations in code.
8. Instruction Coherence: Contradictions across project instructions.
9. Tooling Relevance: Skills/agents/rules/hooks that don't match the project.
10. Documentation Health: Broken cross-links, stale [x] FRs, SRS↔SDS / index drift.
11. Architectural Integrity: Import cycles, layer leakage, reverse dependencies.
12. Conceptual Duplication: Parallel impls of one decision; untyped beside typed; schema clones.
13. API Contract Review: Capability-vs-impl, sentinel-vs-missing, dead enums, type-vs-runtime divergence.
14. Cross-Implementation Symmetry: Capability / error / reserved-set / warning-latch parity across impls.
15. Defensive-Programming Smell: Silent swallows, fallback-on-zero, error-as-decision coupling.
16. Invariant ↔ Test Pairing: Documented invariants without tests; stub-only contract tests.
17. Public-Surface Quality: Synonym/method dupes; internal-only barrel re-exports; mixed reserved lists.

Rules & Constraints

1. **Precision**: Use specific thresholds (e.g., File > 500 lines). 2. **Constructive**: Every issue must have a proposed fix. 3. **Holistic**: Scan `documents/`, `.cursor/`, and source code directories. 4. **Mandatory**: Use a task management tool (e.g., `todo_write`, `todowrite`) to track progress through the phases. 5. **Language Agnostic**: Adapt checks (imports, syntax, test patterns) to the primary language of the project (TS, JS, Py, Go, etc.). 6. **No premature fixes**: Do NOT apply any changes during the Scan Phase. Only collect findings. 7. **User decides**: Every fix requires explicit user approval. Never apply fixes silently. 8. **Findings are first-hand or verified**: every finding MUST be ground-truthed against the source before the summary. Subagent-supplied findings (`Explore`, `Task`, `Agent`, or a `maintenance-scan-*` bucket worker) are leads, not conclusions, and carry no severity until the parent assigns it. See Step 3 (Verify Findings + Severity gate) and [references/verification-gate.md](references/verification-gate.md). 9. **Severity calibration**: every finding gets one tier per [references/severity-rubric.md](references/severity-rubric.md). In doubt between two tiers, pick the lower (anti-inflation). Critical share ≤ 35 % of total findings.

Question Format (FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT)

For the per-finding Apply / Skip / Edit verdict in Step 6 (Interactive Resolution Loop):

• The question MUST be a numbered list item (1., 2., …) — not a heading, bold-only line, or paragraph.
• The post-summary "how to proceed" prompt in Step 5 is exempt: it follows a long rich-content findings list and falls under the "rich-content alternatives" exemption in FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT.

Instructions

<step_by_step>

SCAN PHASE

Collect findings into an internal list. Each: category, site, problem, proposed fix, severity (Critical | High | Medium | Low per references/severity-rubric.md; ties → lower).

1. Initialize & Plan

   • Use a task management tool (e.g., todo_write, todowrite) to create a plan covering all scan categories below.
   • Identify project's primary language and source directories.
   • Read-only fan-out (FR-MAINT-SCAN): scan the 16 categories via 5 parallel specialized read-only maintenance-scan-* subagents (one per bucket — names in the Category index below). Each agent is SELF-CONTAINED: its full check detail is embedded in its body — spawn it with just the project context, no payload. Workers return raw leads, no severity; the Verify gate (Step 3), severity calibration, and Resolution (Steps 4–6) stay parent-only over the union.

2. Run the 16 Category Checks (partitioned into 5 thematic buckets W1–W5)

   • The COMPLETE per-category sub-check detail is embedded in the 5 maintenance-scan-* agent bodies — the single source. SKILL.md carries only the index below, not the executable detail.
   • Category index (Cat → bucket → agent):
     • W1 (maintenance-scan-hygiene) — 1 Structural Integrity · 2 Code Hygiene · 3 Complexity & Hotspots · 4 Technical Debt
     • W2 (maintenance-scan-dependencies) — 10 Architectural Integrity · 11 Conceptual Duplication · 16 Public-Surface Quality
     • W3 (maintenance-scan-contracts) — 12 API Contract Review · 13 Cross-Implementation Symmetry · 14 Defensive-Programming Smell
     • W4 (maintenance-scan-docs) — 5 Consistency (Docs vs Code) · 7 Instruction Coherence · 9 Documentation Health
     • W5 (maintenance-scan-coverage) — 6 Documentation Coverage · 8 Tooling Relevance · 15 Invariant ↔ Test Pairing
   • Delegate: spawn each bucket's specialized read-only maintenance-scan-* agent (named in the index above) via the IDE's subagent tool (Task / Agent / background task). The agents are self-contained — pass only the project root and a one-line ask ("scan this project, return leads"); no category payload. Workers return raw leads, no severity.
   • No inline fallback (loud failure): if a bucket's agent is unavailable, fails, or times out — retry it ONCE. If it still fails, do NOT re-scan that bucket yourself; record it as NOT SCANNED and report it prominently: the summary (Step 4) MUST carry a line Not scanned: W<n> (<category names>) — <reason> after the closing total. Never silently shrink coverage.
   • Collect every lead into the internal findings list. Consolidate the union before the gate; do NOT assign severity yet — that happens once, parent-side, in Step 3.

3. Verify Findings + Severity (mandatory gate)

   • Before presenting the summary, walk the collected findings list and confirm each ONE-BY-ONE against the source — whether the scan was inline or delegated.
   • For each finding, perform ONE targeted verification matched to its shape (numeric metric / symbol behavior / undocumented claim / cross-implementation claim / architectural claim). Full per-shape checklist + rationale: references/verification-gate.md.
   • Drop findings the verification falsifies. Refine findings the verification corrects. Note falsified ones inline as [verified false] <site>: <original claim> — actually <observed> so the user can see the gate ran and what it caught. [verified false] lines do NOT receive a severity tag — they are dropped findings, not graded ones.
   • Severity check: for every surviving finding, name the rubric anchor in references/severity-rubric.md that justifies the chosen tier (e.g. severity-rubric.md#cat-14-silent-swallow). If you cannot point at the anchor, drop one tier (anti-inflation tie-breaker) or refine the finding so it matches a row.

RESOLUTION PHASE

4. Present Summary

   • Output the full findings list, grouped by category. Plain-text category labels (not # headings). Skip empty categories.
   • Category labels — use the 16 English names from the Context block above (Structural Integrity, Code Hygiene, Complexity & Hotspots, Technical Debt, Consistency (Docs vs Code), Documentation Coverage, Instruction Coherence, Tooling Relevance, Documentation Health, then Cats 10–16 per their Context names). In non-English reports every label MUST be a unique tag for that category — do not collapse two categories to one word and do not omit Documentation Health (FR-DOC-LINT: required dedicated header whenever the Documentation Health check (Cat 9) produced any finding; DOC-to-DOC integrity, distinct from #5 and #6). When in doubt, keep the English label.
   • Each issue line follows the shape: - [N] [Severity] <file/symbol>: <problem>. (Fix: <proposed fix>). Grammar: severity is one of the four literal English strings [Critical], [High], [Medium], [Low] (stays English regardless of report language), placed IMMEDIATELY after the bracketed number and BEFORE the site path; never in the category header. [verified false] drop lines from the gate are emitted WITHOUT a severity tag.
   • Sort within each category: Critical → High → Medium → Low, ties stable by issue number. Numbering runs sequentially across all categories.
   • Closing line carries BOTH severity totals and category totals: Total: N findings — Critical: a, High: b, Medium: c, Low: d (per category: <Cat>: x, <Cat>: y, …). If any bucket ended NOT SCANNED (Step 2 loud failure), append on the next line: Not scanned: W<n> (<category names>) — <reason>.
   • Brief example (covers Categories 1, 2, 9):

     Structural Integrity
     - [1] [Medium] src/oldfile.ts: in root, should be in src/utils/. (Fix: move)
     
     Code Hygiene
     - [2] [Medium] utils.ts: unused export `myFunc`. (Fix: delete)
     
     Documentation Health
     - [3] [High] FR-AUTH marked [x] in SRS, acceptance test path does not exist. (Fix: create the test file or revert to [ ])
     
     Total: 3 findings — Critical: 0, High: 1, Medium: 2, Low: 0 (per category: Structural Integrity: 1, Code Hygiene: 1, Documentation Health: 1).
     

   • One representative finding per category (all 16), in the same shape, lives in references/example-findings.md. The full per-category rubric for choosing the tier lives in references/severity-rubric.md.

5. Ask User How to Proceed

   • Ask which findings to resolve (this prompt is exempt from FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT — see scope). Accepted reply modes:
     • numbers (e.g. 1, 3, 4) — only those findings
     • category name (e.g. Hygiene) — that category
     • severity name (critical, high, medium, low — case-insensitive) — that tier
     • compound severity (plus-separated, e.g. critical+high) — union of listed tiers
     • all — every finding one by one
     • agent's choice — pick the most impactful subset yourself with a one-line justification, proceed without re-asking
     • done — stop, no fixes

6. Interactive Resolution Loop

   • For each selected finding (in order):
     1. Show file, problem, proposed fix.
     2. Ask (numbered question per FR-UNIVERSAL.QA-FORMAT): Apply | Skip | Edit (user supplies alternative fix).
     3. After applying, briefly confirm.
   • After all selected findings, show counts: N applied, M skipped, K edited.

</step_by_step>

Verification

[ ] Checked structural integrity (file placement, naming, configs). [ ] Scanned for dead code and unused imports. [ ] Checked file/function length limits (500/50 lines). [ ] Aggregated all TODO/FIXME tags. [ ] Verified documentation terminology vs code usage. [ ] Checked for missing code documentation (File/Class/Method). [ ] Checked instruction coherence across CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and docs (contradictions, ambiguities, redundancy). [ ] Checked tooling relevance (skills, agents, hooks vs. project stack and domain). [ ] Checked Documentation Health (FR-DOC-LINT) — findings grouped under the dedicated `Documentation Health` header. [ ] Checked Cats 10-16 (architectural review): integrity, conceptual duplication, API contract, cross-impl symmetry, defensive smell, invariant↔test, public surface. [ ] Verified Findings gate ran: each finding was ground-truthed against the source (subagent-supplied findings re-read by the executor) before the summary; falsified findings dropped with a `[verified false]` line. [ ] Every surviving finding carries one of `[Critical] | [High] | [Medium] | [Low]` per `references/severity-rubric.md`; the anti-inflation tie-breaker was honored (Critical share ≤ 35 %). [ ] Closing total line reports per-severity counters in addition to per-category counters. [ ] Presented numbered summary of all findings, grouped by category, sorted within each category Critical → High → Medium → Low. [ ] Asked the user how to proceed with resolution, accepting numbers, category, severity name, compound severity, `all`, `agent's choice`, or `done`. [ ] Resolved selected findings interactively (apply/skip/edit per finding). [ ] Showed final resolution summary (applied/skipped/edited counts).